Skip to contentNational Women's Law Center

Womenstake, NWLC's Blog

March Jobs Report: Weak Job Growth, Black Women’s Unemployment Continues to Rise

Posted by Anne Morrison, Fellow | Posted on: April 03, 2015 at 03:06 pm

Today’s release of March’s jobs data reports a slowdown in job growth and other troubling signs for workers and the economy. Our analysis shows increases in unemployment for some vulnerable groups, and finds a sizable share of jobs added were in low-wage sectors.

The overall unemployment rate in March was unchanged from February at 5.5 percent, and the unemployment rate for adult women (20 and older) was likewise flat at 4.9 percent. However, adult African American women’s unemployment rate rose for the third month in a row, marking a troubling trend for 2015. At 9.2 percent, it is now a full percentage point higher than it was in December 2014. Unemployment rates also rose for adult Latinas and single mothers in March from February.

Read more... Add new comment

SCOTUS and Medicaid: Another Threat to Women’s Health Care

Posted by Karen Davenport, Director of Health Policy | Posted on: April 01, 2015 at 05:23 pm

In a 5-4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court decided that health care providers cannot sue state Medicaid programs to enforce federal Medicaid law. In Armstrong v. Exceptional Child, Medicaid providers for individuals with developmental disabilities had sued Idaho over payment rates that, they argued, violated requirements in the Medicaid statute that require states to pay participating providers rates that ensure patients’ access to services.

Read more... Add new comment

A Win for Peggy Young Means the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is More Critical Than Ever

Posted by Abigail Bar-Lev, Fellow | Posted on: April 01, 2015 at 11:16 am

Cross-posted from Alliance for Justice’s blog

Last week, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court in Young v. UPS gave Peggy Young and lots of pregnant workers like her a victory. Peggy worked as a driver at UPS. When she got pregnant, she informed UPS that her doctor had advised her to avoid lifting more than 20 pounds during her pregnancy. However, Peggy was pushed onto unpaid leave because UPS refused to accommodate her, even though it accommodated other groups of workers, including those who required accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, those who lost their Department of Transportation certification, and those who needed lifting restrictions due to an on-the-job injury.

Read more... Add new comment

New Guide for States on Implementing the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014

Today, the National Women’s Law Center and CLASP are releasing Implementing the Child Care and Development Block Grant Reauthorization: A Guide for States.

Last November, Congress reauthorized CCDBG, our major federal child care program, for the first time since 1996. Key provisions in the new law support the following objectives:

  • Protecting the health and safety of children in care through more consistent standards and monitoring of standards.
  • Improving the quality of care, including through increased supports for child care providers.
  • Enabling families to more easily access child care assistance that supports stable and continuous care and that can be coordinated with other programs.
Read more... Add new comment

Pregnant Workers Need More Than Lip Service

Posted by Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel | Posted on: March 30, 2015 at 02:11 pm

First the good news: last Thursday night the Senate unanimously voted for providing pregnant workers with a right to workplace accommodations. Now the bad news: the measure is nonbinding and purely symbolic — unless the Senators who voted for it are held accountable for supporting the real thing.

The budget amendment, introduced by Senator Casey, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Murray, was the first opportunity for Senators to vote on accommodations for pregnant workers. And it was a big hit! Unanimous votes are not so typical in the Senate these days, even for nonbinding measures. In some ways, though, unanimous support for the measure isn't so surprising. After all, West Virginia, Illinois, and Delaware all unanimously passed bills requiring reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers in 2014, as did Philadelphia, D.C., Providence, and (the year before) New York City. Only one legislator voted against New Jersey's 2014 pregnancy accommodations law.

Read more... Add new comment

Pregnant Workers Look to Congress to Strengthen Supreme Court Win

Posted by Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel | Posted on: March 27, 2015 at 05:27 pm

Cross-posted from ACSLaw's blog

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court delivered an important victory for pregnant workers [PDF] when in a 6-3 ruling it revived Peggy Young’s pregnancy discrimination case against UPS and sent it back to the lower courts for further proceedings. In so ruling, the Supreme Court declined UPS’s invitation to read a key piece of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act completely out of the statute books. This decision should put employers on notice that when they exclude pregnant workers with medical needs from accommodations that they make for workers with disabilities or injuries, they do so at their legal peril. Nevertheless, the Court’s decision also requires a somewhat unpredictable and fact-intensive analysis of these sorts of pregnancy discrimination claims. As a result, individual pregnant women may still face real uncertainty as to their workplace rights, and individual employers may choose to take their chances in litigation rather than promptly providing accommodations to women who need them. Congress should act now to affirm and strengthen this decision, to ensure that no pregnant woman is forced to choose between her job and the health of her pregnancy.

Read more... Add new comment

Americans Want to Raise the Minimum Wage — And So Does Senator Murray

Posted by Julie Vogtman, Senior Counsel and Director of Income Support Policy | Posted on: March 27, 2015 at 01:59 pm

The passage of the program-slashing, millionaire-protecting budget measures in the House and Senate this week might have you convinced that no one in Congress is looking out for women and their families. But all is not lost! A number of our leaders in Washington do in fact care about families who are struggling to make ends meet. Here’s one example: reports have surfaced this week that Senator Murray (D-WA) is looking to introduce a bill that would raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020. She’d also “like to see the separate tipped [minimum cash] wage abolished altogether,” and her proposal would include an indexing measure to ensure that the value of the minimum wage does not erode in the future.

This proposal stands in stark contrast to the Republican budget plans—and it is exactly the kind of measure we need to ensure that women and families across the country begin to experience a real economic recovery. Today, women are two-thirds of the workers making the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour—a wage that leaves a full-time working mom with two children thousands of dollars below the poverty line. Women are also two-thirds of tipped workers, for whom the federal minimum cash wage has been stuck at just $2.13 per hour for nearly 25 years. Nationwide, the poverty rate for tipped workers is about twice as high as the rate for the workforce as a whole.

Read more... Add new comment

House and Senate Pass Budgets Slashing Programs for Struggling Families, Advance Tax Cuts for Multimillionaires

Bad news on the federal budget front continues this week: on Wednesday, a Republican majority in the House passed a budget plan that slashes trillions of dollars from programs for low-income families but shields tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. And in the wee hours this morning, the Senate wrapped up its budget debate and passed a similarly disastrous proposal along party lines. Though the House and Senate budget resolutions are blueprints—legislation making the changes they call for would still have to be enacted—they are an important statement of congressional priorities, and in the words of Senator Sanders (D-VT), the Republican budgets “say those people who are struggling, those people who are trying to feed their families, those people who are trying to send their kids to college, those are not the people that we should be helping. Rather, we’ve got to worry about the top 1 percent.”

Read more... Add new comment